Am Donnerstag, 24. Oktober 2002 00:45 schrieb Matthew Dharm:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 10:23:02PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > This could also be entirely solved by making the requirements that:
> > > (1) The core or HCD will unlink all URBs for a removed device when
> > > it's removed
> >
> > To do so you need to add the urb to a per device list, which has to be
> > locked. The problems arise if you loose the race. Where do you put the
> > lock ?
>
> In the core or the HCD. I presume the HCD needs to be able to lock that
> list anyway, for insert/remove.
Sorry to be more precise, into which data structure do you want to put
the lock and the list head ? It cannot be a per device data structure as
you have to free that sooner or later after disconnect.
Queued URBs are not so much of a problem. Those we could deal with.
Those who are being submitted or about to be submitted are the problem.
Regards
Oliver
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: Influence the future
of Java(TM) technology. Join the Java Community
Process(SM) (JCP(SM)) program now.
http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?sunm0002en
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
